Interesting poll numbers. I wonder where Lamont's Democratic primary poll numbers were three months before that election. I suspect he wasn't in the lead there, either.

While these numbers show that Lamont isn't the frontrunner in the race at this time (and I suspect Lamont's people didn't expect him to be so), If I were a Lieberman supporter, I wouldn't be popping the champagne corks just yet.

I don't know if I posted it here or someplace else, but I'm not convinced that Lieberman will win the general election.

Lieberman beat a very unpopular Lowell Weicker to gain his Senate seat 18 years ago (or so), and has run as a liberal incumbent in a liberal state ever since. It is not obvious to me that he is prepared to run a campaign against a viable Democratic candidate who is perceived as being to his Left and anti-war in what appears to be an anti-war state.

I sort of expect 80% of Dems to eventually vote for Lamont, and perhaps 35-40% of indys. That would mean that Joe has to run a near-perfect campaign.

OTOH, it is not at all obvious that Lamont's lack of experience won't under the pressure of the campaign do or say something so stupid as to blow his chance. In fact, I rather expect him to make some pretty big gaffe, it just remains to be seen what it is and how it is perceived.

Anyway, I don't think Lieberman has all that easy a road. Can he turn out Republicans to vote for him who would otherwise stay at home? I don't know, and I don't trust anyone who claims to know. That may make the difference. What kind of campaign would he have to run to do that, and would it hurt him with Indys and Dems?

Something's wrong. There can't possibly be that many imbeciles among the relevant sample of Connecticut general election voters. (Schlesinger voters notwithstanding.).52*.41 + .15*.46 = .28Only 28 % (assuming no undecided and GOP voters want bush impeached). There is only about half the imbeciles.

Is Ann laughing with Joe, or at him? Her post can be read both ways. And frankly, even without looking at the dreaded 'internals' this poll looks like bad news for Joe. If a three term incumbent Senator (formerly) of the dominant in-state party isn't even cracking 50% two months before the election, that incumbent is in deep shit. If I were a betting man, I'd take Lamont.

Bissage,I think what's wrong is your math. By that calculation if half the Lamont voters wanted impeachment and half the Lieberman voters wanted the same, then 100% of all Connecticut voters would be for impeachment! (50+50=100)

somefeller said..."Interesting poll numbers. I wonder where Lamont's Democratic primary poll numbers were three months before that election. I suspect he wasn't in the lead there, either."

A fair point, but an inapt comparison. Three months before the Dem primary, Lamont's numbers had no direction to go but up; now, though, his numbers have peaked. Given that the kind of people who are energized by the issue Lamont represents are Democratic primary voters, Lamont has reached the apogee of his support, and it was barely a majority of Democratic Primary voters. With Lieberman in the race as an independent, Lamont will be highly unlikely to expand his base of support beyond those who voted for him in the primary; he may get a few percent, but that will be it.

Were Lieberman not in the race, to be sure, Lamont would pick up reluctant votes against Schlesinger, but with Lamont in the race, CT indepndents can choose to vote for Lieberman as or not as the dem nominee, and I suspect most CT Republicans will back him in order to stick one in Kos' eye.

Susan said..."Bissage, I think what's wrong is your math. By that calculation if half the Lamont voters wanted impeachment and half the Lieberman voters wanted the same, then 100% of all Connecticut voters would be for impeachment!"

Susan,In a massive feat of irony, your math is off. Even assuming -- falsely, but for sake of argument -- that 100% of CT voters voted for Lieberman and Lamont, that means 50% of the electorate voted for each candidate. Ergo, "if half the Lamont voters wanted impeachment and half the Lieberman voters wanted the same," that means 2 x 25% = 50% of the electorate wanted impeachment.

But as we know, 100% of the CT electorate didn't (and won't in the general) vote for Lieberman or Lamont, so in fact 50% would be an extremely generous and speculative upper threshold for the number wanting impeachment.

Watch the next few 2-4 weeks to see how soft the DEM Lieberman voters are. If he doesn't lose too many more by then, I think he's gonna win. Why?

1. Lamont is self defined way to the left of Lieberman. Lieberman doesn't have to worry about the REP candidate crowding him on the right/center so Lieberman can remain Left center and guard his left flank. No room for Lamont to slide right.

2. Lieberman can now run as the non-establishment honest outsider against the Party choice. that dilutes Lamont's previous message.

3. None of the REPs are going to kiss Joe again, but no REP is going to take a cheap shot at Joe either.

4. If Reid strips Joe of assignments as was suggested by the Kos kids, If I were McConnell/Frist, I'd cut a deal with Joe on the side. We'll cut Schlesinger off, if after the election, you'd consider joining the next Senate as an independent caucusing with the REPs

5. Lieberman is doing better in a 3 person race now than a month ago. Lamont clearly scares some more IND and REPs into Lieberman votes.

Two points: Now that it's a real race for the seat, people are paying attention, not just partisans. And from what I've seen of Lamont's ads, he seems sort of juvenile, which I doubt will appeal across the electorate.

Secondly, Joe has become sort of a Republican darling. He may get their votes out of sympathy and that big, forbidden smooch .

I saw some of Lieberman's numbers, in a three way race, start to tank so I have been assuming that most democrats would just return to Lamont and that Lieberman would need a nearly impossible amount of support from the rest of the electorate. This poll has proven my gut instinct incorrect, at least at this point.

Maybe more dems in Conn aren't quite what Paul Begala would call the Volvo driving, wine and cheese party going, NPR listening liberals. Lieberman did great in the working class areas, while Lamont captured the limosine liberals. This is an oversimplification, but a trend that could be amplified if Lieberman could show that Lamont is a bootlick of hucksters and bigots like the two Reverends, Al "Crown Heights" Sharpton and Jesse "Hymie Town" Jackson.

Bissage questioned the humor of Don Novello. I must disagree having read his book "The Lazlo Toth Letters" about 30 years ago. Here is the link.http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1563052857/104-9817737-2410356?v=glance&n=283155

The Drill SGT said..."If Reid strips Joe of assignments as was suggested by the Kos kids, If I were McConnell/Frist, I'd cut a deal with Joe on the side. We'll cut Schlesinger off, if after the election, you'd consider joining the next Senate as an independent caucusing with the REPs"

But beyond tactics, although we are now the big tent party, I find it a little difficult to believe that a union with Lieberman would work out well for him or us. The huge irony in the primary was that with the exception of maybe one or two issues, Lieberman is totally at odds with the GOP; he's a nice guy, but he's a liberal, far, far to the left of even a Lincoln Chaffee.

Liebrman had engaged in three state wide campaigns, and is still much more familiar to the voters of Connecticut. Lamont's campaign has been aimed at Democratic voters. It's interesting to see assessments like Lamont's numbers have "peaked," with virtually no evidence to back that up. If his support has peaked, then you're suggesting that his support among Democrats who voted for him is now about to diminish, rather than serving as a base while he reaches out to the larger voting population.

Republicans can whistle past the graveyard all they want, but there were more issues here than the war, and more forces at play than bloggers. The suggestion that Republicans might vote for Lieberman to stick it to Kos is a perfect example of the wrongheaded thinking of many of the commenters on this board. The blogosphere is such a hothouse environment that people actually start to believe that everyone spends as much time on blogs as they do. I'm willing to bet that a very sizable percentage of Connecticut Republicans have no idea who Kos is, and even fewer are in any way motivated to cast their vote based on their feelings about Kos, or left wing bloggers in general. Think about the races in your own states. How many of them have anything to do with bloggers? Just because Lamont became the darling of the left wing bloggers nationally doesn't mean that blogs are a key issue within the state of Connecticut.

I'll repeat what I've said before: The Republicans are like generals fighting the last war. They think it's still 2003, and everyone is too intimidated to speak out against the war. Well, the tide has turned. It's humorous to see that 60 percent of the country supports a certain stance on an issue, but anyone who runs based on support for that stance is horribly out of step with the public.

Bill O'Reilly (hardly a tool of the left) said on his show that the phone calls tapped by American authorities in the case were all done with warrants issued by the FISA courts, as required by law. No one on the left has suggested that there should be no surveillance of terror suspects and their phone calls, only that warrants should be issued (as was apparently done in this case).

So my response (and likely Lamont's response) would be that the surveillance of phone calls by the U.S. made involving terror suspects was done legally, as it should be done, and that if anything, this case proves why the whole 'warrantless surveillance' program was unnecessary as well as illegal; following existing law and obtaining warrants from the FISA court is adequate.

" Who said that people would be voting for Lieberman to vote against Kos? I think we're all talking about the statewide, two-party election, where broader issues will motivate voters."

I was responding to Simon, who said: "and I suspect most CT Republicans will back him in order to stick one in Kos' eye."

Plus, I think if you read most of the comments on this and related threads, most of the talk, especially from those who oppose Lamont, is about national Republican v. Democrat issues. In fact, I've seen very few issues primarily of importance to Connecticut voters discussed here at all.

Chris:"If [Lamont's] support has peaked, then you're suggesting that his support among Democrats who voted for him is now about to diminish, rather than serving as a base while he reaches out to the larger voting population."

Nope. If one suggests that Lamont's support has peaked, such a statement does not address whether he will retain his support from Democrats who voted for him, only whether he will gain additional support from Democrats who voted for Lieberman and "the larger voting population" of Connecticut. What's tripping you up is that you're reading an inference that "peak" means "must now drop" which simply isn't there.

I'm a bit skeptical about the usefulness of a poll that only gives 6% of the vote to the Republican nominee. Granted, Schlesinger is a weak nominee and its a blue state, but even in the bluest of blue and reddest of red states, the minority party routinely garners at least 6% of the vote. A certain number of people are loyal to their party no matter what and I have trouble believing that number is so low for Connecticut Republicans.

As a conservative I have a kind of respect for the true lefties that fueled the Lamont campaign. They were will to take their stand without qualification. I really hope the voters respond by kicking Lamont to the curb but I admire the pureness of their ridiculously out of left field positions. (If only the Republicans had the guts to toss Chaffee, Snow, et al.)

Now what does this mean for the Democratic presidential hopefuls? Is Hillary in trouble? Besides voting for the war in Iraq, she has, at times, support Israel. That can't be good for her.

"I'm a bit skeptical about the usefulness of a poll that only gives 6% of the vote to the Republican nominee"

Don't be. The GOP candidates are exteremely weak in this election cycle, and there's no reason to believe their fortunes will improve. Even Ned Lamont has admitted as much, and he has reason to disagree--namely, that he could claim Lieberman would act as a spoiler by splitting Dems and allowing a Republican to walk into office.

In this race, it looks more like the Republican candidate could act as a spoiler against Joe! That's not likely, though, because the GOP candidates are moderate, and most kinds of GOP voters would prefer a strong pro-war candidate (Lieberman) or a strong anti-war candidate (Lamont) than a weak pro-war candidate who's a moderate on social issues. Even if the GOP ran a hardline conservative pro-war candidate, the conservatives who care about being pro-war would still go with Joe.

Which suggests that the GOP should run a hardline conservative anti-war candidate--such that anti-war votes would be drawn away from Lamont, benefitting Lieberman by freeing up pro-war Republican voters to vote for him, even if they would otherwise consider the GOP.